I regularly contribute towards 'Other health' topic in Answers Forum of Yahoo. I feel anguished when innumerbale teenagers ask questions about using marijuana (weed).It is clear they like it. Why shouldn't it be banned keeping in view its harmful effects?

I lived in or near Amsterdam for 20 years or so. Soft-drugs were and remain an alternative to the (in the opinion of many) the far more dangerous drugs like alcohol and foo-the-shelf painkillers that are still legal.I don't smoke (at all) and rarely ingest hashish, and only then for medicinal purposes. I'd rather see people take dope than alcohol and will remain of that belief until any doctor or pharmacist proves that there has ever been a single death or major illness from marijuana.I do not condone it's use (except under medical supervision) of under 18's using it as I don't think the body or mind of teenagers can deal with it. I've read studies on how long-term use by younger people can lead to mental illnesses later in life.I don't do drugs, except for the odd beer - but if I did I'd choose marijuana above any other.

It was illegal in the USA for a while, and I think decriminalization is a good thing. The history of banning marijuana in the US is interesting: the tobacco companies (!) pushed for it, to get a larger share of their own markets.

That's not to say I think marijuana is good. It's just that I've read the history of Prohibition (banning alcohol in the US) and the spike in crime it caused, and I've seen how marijuana laws are used to disproprtionately incarcerate poor people and ruin their lives.

I say this as someone who doesn't smoke marijuana or drink. People who use either and commit a crime should face extra consequences for their action. But people thrown in jail for possessing a small amount of marijuana are being treated harshly and unfairly and become a burden on the system, whether they are in jail or unable/untrained to contribute to society as fully as they could.100th person on TFD to 1 million neurons.

I find it just a little strange that our society went nuts over smoking and second-hand smoke, but sees no problem in allowing people to smoke marijuana, the smoke of which is supposed to be inhaled and held in the lungs as long as possible before blowing it out into the air others breathe.

Seems like a major hypocrisy to me.

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~

You are right, FounDit. Anyway, it's quite difficult to analyze various kinds of prohibition - legal aspects, long or short term effects, if they really are a solution or rather a bigger problem etc. What I can't explain to myself is a little more "philosophic": everybody, including the greatest addicts, knows perfectly well that a lot of substances, drugs, alcohol and tobacco being only some of them, are harmful (it's irrelevant to what degree). Then why are there so many people eager to ignore all the warnings and ready to destroy their own bodies and minds?

One of the reasonings is that people smoke a lot less marijuana per capita than tobacco. And, well, marijuana users are more likely to hide their habit.

I think tax dollars pay a big part in the demonization. There's a loop of taxation + demonizing smokers. People call it socially progressive, but I do not think it is fiscally progressive. It's one area where I'm divided with other liberals. I was in bars with smoke eaters and the things seemed to work. And while worker safety should be an issue, having people step out for 4 minutes at 1 AM in a less than safe area of town is its own risk. I've seen people be hassled as they smoke.

This isn't scientific, but after seeing the quick backlash against e-cigarettes, which seem to help smokers quit, I'm worried there is a strong "for your own good" element here, and states need to find a new, fairer revenue besides tobacco taxes. Marijuana taxes might provide some of that, if they could keep it fair.100th person on TFD to 1 million neurons.

Do you know about all the medicinal effects of hemp and marijuana, if exposed properly? The body has an endocannabinoid system with receptors throughout the body which is why it can help with so many health problems. Smoking anything is not good for the lungs, or for others who get second-hand smoke, but there are vaporizers, oils, edibles, and tinctures that are used for medicinal purposes.

If it is allowed recreationally there must be laws about distribution, no smoking in public places like tobacco laws, and careful control of access to those of younger age, the same as with alcohol.

In the UK one person dies every hour from the results of drinking alcohol. Alcohol is legal.

Not one death has ever been recorded from using marijuana. Marijuana is illegal in many places.

The only differences between places where weed is legal and those where it isn't, is that the former has less crime.

Also, of course, in places where it's legal taxes can be levied on it and it can be a source of Government income. Instead of, as now, it being one of the widest-used commodities from which only gangsters reap the millions and millions of dollars profit. While the taxpayer pays for the incarceration, food & shelter of thousands and thousands of people whose crime was to have one joint, of a perfectly harmless natural product, in their pocket.

There are countries; states; areas enough where marijuana has never been illegal, or has for a long time been legal, for numerous studies, research programmes, social commentators etc. to "compare and contrast". There is no difference in longevity rates,or the general health, of the populations whether it's legal or illegal. Except that the crime rates, of course, are lower in the populations where it is legal.

Based in Australia, the Commonwealth Serums Laboratory has been studying and researching this subject for decades. For detailed analyses go to their website which shares research from around the world.

The value of hemp, too, suffered from basic misunderstanding that it was marijuana - and they've done pioneer work in re-introducing it as a crop...which bears twice in one year. From which hundreds of products from clothing to paper to rope can be made with no need for harsh chemicals. And which is giving farmers a bit of a chance to make the money so many have lost and are still losing, trying to run livestock.

Out attitudes toward drugs such as alcohol, marijuana, etc., appears to be a conflict between the freedoms we cherish and the desire to protect our young. We want to allow adults the freedom to choose what they may do so long as it doesn’t hurt another, yet we know some things are very harmful, not only to the individual but to others around them (alcohol being the most well-known example). Some people can handle these things well, while others cannot, and we have no way of knowing beforehand who can and cannot.

Add to this the political and religious aspects, and the situation becomes fraught with complications. And it’s not enough anymore to avoid hurting others. Today, you are not allowed to hurt yourself either, as we see with cigarettes, because we’ve adopted the socialist attitude that everyone has to pay for everyone else; everyone is responsible for everyone else. Therefore, we have the right to circumscribe your behavior and restrict your rights with laws and punishment.

Our young, however, see adults partaking of things forbidden to them and many of them will be eager to try them as soon as possible. Young people always have a desire to be adults as soon as possible so as to enjoy the freedoms they are denied in youth.

If the temptations were limited to only alcohol or marijuana, there would be sufficient danger in only those, but, unfortunately, there are a great many more addictions lurking in the potential world of exploration. Some people believe alcohol and marijuana are so-called “gateway” drugs; drugs that lead to other, harder, drugs like heroin, meth, and opiods. I don’t believe that, but many do. I think it is a psychological thing that leads people to experiment with ever greater chemicals that can have severe consequences.

At any rate, whichever it is, as stated above, parents in particular always want to protect their children, but many adults want the freedom to experiment, and this sets an example from which the children cannot be shielded. So how best to navigate this pathway for parents? There is no perfect answer because forbidding children from partaking while permitting adults to partake of things like alcohol and marijuana will always occur in tandem.

I do think, however, that hiding the results of addiction from children and society in general, which is what we tend to do (warning: some images may be disturbing to some viewers), is exactly the wrong thing to do. If children, especially, are permitted to see what these things can do to people, that might give many of them pause when considering experimenting with them. But to do that we must forsake the current trend of adults thinking of our children as delicate little flowers that can’t see or hear anything that might offend or disturb their fragile senses. And for that to happen, we have to have adults who are capable of doing the same. Our pioneer ancestors probably wouldn’t recognize, or acknowledge, many of their descendants of today.

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~

Well thank the lord for small mercies then, Drago. The sight of a grown, hairy-legged man leaping about with a hey-nonny-nonny and his socks all a-jingle is one I still can't - after 4 years in the UK! - look at with a straight face!

I've always preferred traditional dancing to poncy made-up things anyway. In South Africa it was the Gumboot Dance I loved the most, in Papua New Guinea the Mud Dance, in Switzerland *The Bennison Dance.

I've heard a lot about clog dancing up North, but have never seen it done...in situ as it were.(i.e. not on The Box). I'm sure I'd love it too...and the last thing it is, gotta admit, is poncy.

Why don't you dance it any more? It sounds as though it would be a great anodyne: to bang all one's frustrations out in wood and metal.

If children, especially, are permitted to see what these things can do to people, that might give many of them pause when considering experimenting with them. But to do that we must forsake the current trend of adults thinking of our children as delicate little flowers that can’t see or hear anything that might offend or disturb their fragile senses. And for that to happen, we have to have adults who are capable of doing the same.

Though I'm actually quite the socialist at heart, I agree with virtually everything you say.

1. I believe that health-care should be cheap enough to be affordable to even the poorest families.2. I believe that health-care should not include 'suicide watch'. If someone wants to drink himself (or drug herself) to death - then that's their choice. If someone smokes, they choose to have the risk of lung-disease and treatment would be at their own cost.3. The games, films and cartoons one sees on the internet and TV are highly violent - even the old 'fairy-tales' were amazingly violent. Cowboy films are all about killing people.There's absolutely no reason the hide the real effects of drug-taking. Photos and film of people in uncontrolled withdrawal or half-starved but taking Heroin should be part of their education.Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!

Children and teens do not need to be shielded from results of bad usage of drugs. But bringing in the policeman with big scary pictures in a one-off scenario is not going to stop them. We know that from experience. That has been the approach so far.

What is needed as well as information is to give them confidence and build "resilient students so that they can make good choices." Listening instead of lecturing. A parent remembering what it felt like to be a scared, maybe bullied teen, and showing understanding of their feelings. It means talking to them on a daily basis about life and sex and smoking from day one, as soon as they can talk and comprehend. Just a casual comment here and there, giving them values, not waiting until they are in grade six or seven to have "The Talk". Talking and listening about their problems and not dismissing them and helping with peer pressure while teaching them to think critically to make their own decisions. Just spending quality time with them instead of chasing the everlasting dollar or being on the smart phone. All these can be good strategies.

My 17 year-old granddaughter in her last year of high school told me at Christmas that she is not interested in spending time w0ith any of the boys in her class as "they are all into drugs, Nana, and it is very boring to even listen to them". Unfortunately, a lot of kids don't get the kind of parenting and family life she has had so that she is an athlete who looks after her body and is too busy with her pursuits to think about experimenting with anything.

I agree with Drago about smokers, drug users, alcohol users who get cancer or liver disease, even sun addicts. But then where do we draw the line? Do we deny medical coverage for certain diseases and not others? How could that be enforced? What about gun shots wounds in a society that promotes gun usage? What about people who put chemicals such as perfume on their bodies and it is absorbed? What about fat people? What about the motorcyclists that emergency workers refer to as "organ donors"? The list of all the destructive things people do to themselves could be expanded. Do we just let them die for their mistakes?

It would be better to teach children by example that if they choose the activity, they choose the consequences and have to take responsibility for their actions. Parents nowadays go running to the school that the teacher said such and such to poor Johnny, instead of backing up the teacher's discipline, provided it is reasonable. Making your kids pay for the damages and insurance when they get old enought to borrow the car and scrape the fender teaches responsibility. And so forth.

I saw a great list somewhere today in my readings, but goodness knows where now, about helping children to grow up. Wish I had saved it.

And I am not convinced that marijuana which is just an herb, if used judiciously, by adults, is a bad thing. In fact my previous post listed good qualities. Growing bodies should not have street drugs, their parents' prescription drugs, alcohol, or marijuana.

A man must be excessively stupid, as well as uncharitable, who believes there is no virtue but on his own side. Addison

And it’s not enough anymore to avoid hurting others. Today, you are not allowed to hurt yourself either, as we see with cigarettes,

To be fair, cigarettes hurt not only the smokers themselves, but also those around them.

To be fair, you cannot make such blanket statements. My father smoked and died of lung cancer at 65. My mother lived with him and breathed his smoke for 42 years and died at 94 with no lung problems. I grew up in the house with him, breathing his smoke, and smoked also for 50 years, up to two packs per day before quitting. In my last checkup, the doctor said my lung x-ray results showed perfectly normal lungs.

The point was that some people can tolerate things that others cannot. Often it is a matter of genetics concerning how things affect people. The same can be said of drugs, I think. Some can handle it, others can't. I worked with a man who could do anything he wanted on the job as an electrician while high on marijuana, even drive his motorcycle. I couldn't drive a car while high, let alone a motorcycle. Neither would I be able to work. We can't lump everyone into groups and treat them all the same. Isn't that the supposed focus of the political Left? That each person is supposed to be judged on their individuality? Yet it appears to always be group-think.A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~

If rebuffing my statement with personal anecdotes is a valid strategy, then let me give you my own: My father smoked for fifty years and only recently stopped. My mother is still a smoker (multiple packets a day kind of people). I have many smokers in my family so second hand smoke was unavoidable. Whenever I am around them, I stink of smoke, but more importantly, it affects my breathing, gives me a sore throat to the point where it makes it difficult to speak, stings my eyes, aggravates any illnesses I might have and also slows down how quickly I recover from them. Additionally, it most definitely harms those in my family who suffer from breathing issues such as asthma.

As far as I know, I have no cancer, but those reactions I described are in line with scientific research on the subject of second hand smoke - as acknowledged by the American Cancer Society, the CDC, Cancer Research UK, the NHS, and numerous Belgian sources that I consulted.

I'm glad you don't experience any adverse results from the smokers around you and I'm thrilled your mother had no lung problems. I cannot say the same for myself and people I know.

FounDit wrote: "We can't lump everyone into groups and treat them all the same. Isn't that the supposed focus of the political Left? "

I was about to say "Hear, Hear" when I read sentence one above. Correct. We can't lump everyone into groups. Then I read sentence two. :)

The political left is a legitimate group but unless I missed it I haven't heard anybody else either here or in the news talking about generalizations except me. At least not all of them have that focus. And in an earlier thread you put me into the group because I'm a social liberal but politically I am AC/DC and depending upon policies and qualities of leaders may vote for either party.

Maybe your mother might have lived to be 104 if not exposed to smoke, FD. Nobody can say anything for certain about the effects of smoke on people's bodies but I can't see those toxins the liver has to eliminate ever being beneficial to anybody. The same with alcohol and drugs of any kind. Even prescription drugs have risks. Herbs are also drugs and have both benefits and drawbacks. Even some foods can be a problem.

I was a rebellious little thing (my friends tell me I still am a bit but age has muted it) and I started smoking at eleven. I can remember blowing smoke out my open bedroom window so my parents would not catch me. 😀 My Dad would have killed me. I smoked menthols a pack a day or more. I quit while pregnant but did not quit for good until age 35. I probably picked up some of those toxic metals from smoking. Nowadays I still like the smell but it definitely does not like me and all my allergies. A man must be excessively stupid, as well as uncharitable, who believes there is no virtue but on his own side. Addison

Lotje1000, in providing your own anecdotes, you prove my point: that each person reacts differently to environmental exposures. In the same way, Hope's post confirms the same idea. She says she likes the smell of smoke after quitting, but I now find it repulsive, something I thought I'd never say when I smoked. We're all different. Yet, all those government agencies ( American Cancer Society, the CDC, Cancer Research UK, the NHS,) adopted the same generalizations of smoking and second-hand smoke in order to convince people to stop smoking. Why? -- to save money on healthcare, especially when they have to tax the whole population for it.

Since Obama and Hillary wanted to establish just such a National Healthcare System here in the US, this was one of the behaviors that had to be modified as much as possible. Which brings me to DragOnspeaker's list:

1. I believe that health-care should be cheap enough to be affordable to even the poorest families.2. I believe that health-care should not include 'suicide watch'. If someone wants to drink himself (or drug herself) to death - then that's their choice. If someone smokes, they choose to have the risk of lung-disease and treatment would be at their own cost.

I agree with you. However, just as a matter of discussion, who decides which behaviors will be covered and which will not? And to make health-care affordable enough for even the poorest families, will not some procedures and tests have to be rationed in a country of 360 million and growing? Many of the poorest families (here in the US anyway) are obese. Would the government then be allowed to ration their food intake since obesity is the cause of many health problems? Where do we draw the line? That was one of the arguments against Obamacare here. If the government can tax cigarettes to the point of making them exorbitant, which they have done here, and which hurts the poor most because they are the majority of smokers, (smoking, drinking and sex being the major pleasures), can they not also tax into exorbitance anything they deem to be unhealthy? That isn't a road I'd like to travel.

All this ties into a major meme of the US. Historically, we've been taught and trained to be individualistic (so-called "rugged individualism"), to be strong in ourselves, to be dependent on others as little as possible, and especially not the government. But all that has changed in the last 60 years or so. Dependency is now the norm being preached. Whatever problems one encounters in life, look to the government to solve it. Whatever problems occur in society, just pass a law to forbid it. It is the antithesis of the strong individual who can stand on their own.

Those who advocate the group over the individual like to relate it to the difficulty in breaking a bundle of sticks. It's easy to break one stick, but difficult to break a bundle of sticks. True, as long as each stick is strong in itself. But if each stick is weak, then it is the difference between breaking a bundle of sticks and a bundle of spaghetti. I'd rather be a strong stick in a bundle of strong sticks.

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~

I agree with most of what you said, FD. Of course we're all different, are affected differently by any exposure, and of course we should all take responsibility for ourselves and for our own health. Nobody is disagreeing with that.

But please clarify that you are not saying that your government just told you that smoking is bad for you to save healthcare money and that you disagree with the general knowledge that it affects every part of every body, whether it shows up earlier or later, or the effects remain unseen, and causes or aggravates many diseases. That's how your first paragraph reads, as if the government did something wrong in warning people. I'm pretty sure that is not what you meant?

Besides, why would the government have cared back then? The US healthcare is still not single payer and the partial government Obamacare is fairly recent, long after people stopped believing the tobacco companies. The debate started in Canada in 1963. I finally quit for good in 1975 and I had known it was unhealthy long before that. Surely the States was not that far behind?

In fact governments benefit from tax revenue from tobacco and alcohol. Besides the fact that prohibition of anything never works, the CDN government just put warnings on the labels, legislated the minimum age to whom suppliers can sell, jacked up taxes, and really still wants the revenue. People thus are warned but make their own choices.

As for who decides what is covered - in Canada it "is up to the provincial and territorial health insurance plans, in consultation with their respective physician colleges or groups, to determine which services are medically necessary for health insurance purposes...and the full cost of the service must be covered by the public health insurance plan to be in compliance with the (Federal) Act." Copied from some CDN govt page.

We pay for elective or cosmetic surgery ourselves.

The govt and physicians decide pretty much the same as private insurance companies - WHY you are ill is NOT considered, but if you are obese they may not operate until you lose weight if the risk is too great. Your doctor decides that and encourages people to behave healthily. We have clinics, nutritionists, and groups for specifc problems to guide and advise people - re obesity, diabetes, etc. A CDN patient was just denied a liver transplant because she disobeyed the rule of no alcohol for six months previously. So she's back atthe bottom of the list. And since organ donation is voluntary, that is one area where people have to wait and even may die if one does not become available in time. But that is not the fault of the system.

As for our Ontario system - if a family makes over a certain amount in income, there is a premium that must be paid on the tax return. I don't remember how much - a few hundred dollars. In fact that was how it started - we all paid a monthly premium and were grateful to be able to do so and get the care we needed without going bankrupt if a major illness hit. We still say they should not have put the expenditure to be paid from general taxes.

We can choose any doctor we want, change doctors as often as we want, go as often as we want, go to Urgent Care, or Hospital Emergency, and we cannot be turned away. A doctor does have the discretion to decide if they want you as a patient.

How many people are in a country does not matter, because the more people, the more they contribute to the economy and pay taxes.

BTW - Why should the poor be given a pass to spend their money on tobacco, alcohol, drugs, and junk foods that make them fat any more than anybody else? Americans complain about the cost of Al and tobacco? Canadians love to get their tobacco and alcohol, from the States where it is so so much cheaper because of our higher taxes. Thus it fittingly is the users of those products who are the ones who help to pay through the exorbitant taxes for the extra costs they incur in healthcare. Pop, or sodas as you say, are also taxed. In fact so are chocolate bars and candy and foods not considered to be groceries.

My brother slipped and fell on the ice today at the supermarket parking lot. He was taken by ambulance to hospital and within a couple of hours he had been seen by a doctor, admitted to a hospital room, and they were doing the necessary tests to see what had happened. He is getting surgery tomorrow. On Sunday. (They even do MRIs etc at night now.) All he needed was his OHIP card, a photo ID which everyone carries with them at all times. If it is a private room his private hospital insurance that he pays for himself (used to be a benefit by his employer till he retired) will pick up the difference from a semi private room cost. New hospitals are now pretty much all private rooms.

Humans love to complain about everything, and there are things that could be better in our system, but if there is an emergency, we are well taken care of immediately.

A man must be excessively stupid, as well as uncharitable, who believes there is no virtue but on his own side. Addison

I agree with most of what you said, FD. Of course we're all different, are affected differently by any exposure, and of course we should all take responsibility for ourselves and for our own health. Nobody is disagreeing with that.

But please clarify that you are not saying that your government just told you that smoking is bad for you to save healthcare money and that you disagree with the general knowledge that it affects every part of every body, whether it shows up earlier or later, or the effects remain unseen, and causes or aggravates many diseases. That's how your first paragraph reads, as if the government did something wrong in warning people. I'm pretty sure that is not what you meant?No, smoking can be very bad for many people. I wouldn't advocate it for anyone. But we were told smoking-related illnesses were the cause of higher healthcare, and taxes would help pay for that. Instead, the money was put into the general fund of most states who spent it on whatever they chose, or on school funding. Nothing wrong with that, but don't lie about it, and don't punish the poor who could afford the higher taxes the least.

Besides, why would the government have cared back then? The US healthcare is still not single payer and the partial government Obamacare is fairly recent, long after people stopped believing the tobacco companies. The debate started in Canada in 1963. I finally quit for good in 1975 and I had known it was unhealthy long before that. Surely the States was not that far behind? But Obama stated that he always intended for the US to have a single payer system. This has been a goal of the Progressive Left here for many years, and often publicly stated.

In fact governments benefit from tax revenue from tobacco and alcohol. Besides the fact that prohibition of anything never works, the CDN government just put warnings on the labels, legislated the minimum age to whom suppliers can sell, jacked up taxes, and really still wants the revenue. People thus are warned but make their own choices.

As for who decides what is covered - in Canada it "is up to the provincial and territorial health insurance plans, in consultation with their respective physician colleges or groups, to determine which services are medically necessary for health insurance purposes...and the full cost of the service must be covered by the public health insurance plan to be in compliance with the (Federal) Act." Copied from some CDN govt page. The key words are that it is up to the politicians, in consultation with physicians. Who will have the ultimate say -- the politicians or the physicians? Many of us here don't trust the politicians who consistently lie to us.

We pay for elective or cosmetic surgery ourselves.

The govt and physicians decide pretty much the same as private insurance companies - WHY you are ill is NOT considered, but if you are obese they may not operate until you lose weight if the risk is too great. That contradicts what you just said about not considering WHY you are ill. Obesity is a factor in a great many illnesses. Your doctor decides that and encourages people to behave healthily. We have clinics, nutritionists, and groups for specifc problems to guide and advise people - re obesity, diabetes, etc. Our doctors encourage healthy lifestyles also, but they don't get to say who pays. Under single payer, government bureaucrats do since they collect the money and spend it. A CDN patient was just denied a liver transplant because she disobeyed the rule of no alcohol for six months previously. So she's back atthe bottom of the list. And since organ donation is voluntary, that is one area where people have to wait and even may die if one does not become available in time. But that is not the fault of the system.

As for our Ontario system - if a family makes over a certain amount in income, there is a premium that must be paid on the tax return. I don't remember how much - a few hundred dollars. In fact that was how it started - we all paid a monthly premium and were grateful to be able to do so and get the care we needed without going bankrupt if a major illness hit. We still say they should not have put the expenditure to be paid from general taxes.

We can choose any doctor we want, change doctors as often as we want, go as often as we want, go to Urgent Care, or Hospital Emergency, and we cannot be turned away. A doctor does have the discretion to decide if they want you as a patient. I'm glad your system works for you and you are happy with it. But we have no comparable system, and as has been proved, Obamacare has collapsed because it was poorly designed. It fact, it was designed to fail purposely. This does not engender trust in government.

How many people are in a country does not matter, because the more people, the more they contribute to the economy and pay taxes. It will matter if the people have to be taxed exorbitantly to pay for healthcare that isn't rationed in some respect. And if healthcare is rationed, then you have a system that is just like the one you pay for.

BTW - Why should the poor be given a pass to spend their money on tobacco, alcohol, drugs, and junk foods that make them fat any more than anybody else? Americans complain about the cost of Al and tobacco? So your ARE in favor of punishing people for their lifestyles, eh? Canadians love to get their tobacco and alcohol, from the States where it is so so much cheaper because of our higher taxes. Thus it fittingly is the users of those products who are the ones who help to pay through the exorbitant taxes for the extra costs they incur in healthcare. Pop, or sodas as you say, are also taxed. In fact so are chocolate bars and candy and foods not considered to be groceries. So the poor have to pay more because they don't live a healthy lifestyle? So much for equal treatment.

My brother slipped and fell on the ice today at the supermarket parking lot. He was taken by ambulance to hospital and within a couple of hours he had been seen by a doctor, admitted to a hospital room, and they were doing the necessary tests to see what had happened. He is getting surgery tomorrow. On Sunday. (They even do MRIs etc at night now.) All he needed was his OHIP card, a photo ID which everyone carries with them at all times. If it is a private room his private hospital insurance that he pays for himself (used to be a benefit by his employer till he retired) will pick up the difference from a semi private room cost. New hospitals are now pretty much all private rooms.

Humans love to complain about everything, and there are things that could be better in our system, but if there is an emergency, we are well taken care of immediately. Well, like I said, I'm glad you like what you have. But there is more than one way to do things, and I think we can come up with a good plan at some point. My only complaint was that Obamacare was not that good plan, and those of us who objected were proved right.

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~

Our province is given a healthcare transfer from the feds and until this year, I don't think there were strings. I could be wrong. This year they had to stipulate a certain amount went to mental healthcare. I have no problem with my provincial government using all their revenues as they see fit to run the province. Our taxation system is progressive - the really poor don't pay income taxes and in fact get GIS from the feds and GAINS from the province - guaranteed income levels. But - if they decide to smoke and drink, why should they get a pass on paying taxes on those products anymore than anyone else when it can be used to offset the costs of the healthcare costs caused by those activities? We all have to make choices and spend our money according to our priorities. If they spend it on that, they have less for other things, same as I do. I couldn't afford to smoke even if I wanted to. I like chips and pop too but I eat them as a treat now and again. Moderation. I don't get your point about the poor being penalized for their lifestyle any more than anyone else. You often mention personal responsibility. They need to take responsibility for their lifestyles as much as anybody else. They are not paying more unless they buy those products more.

Groceries and necessities of life are not taxed in Canada, but non essentials and services are. From my recollections of living in the States it is pretty much the same there too except no tax on services. Americans pay less taxes than many countries yet many complain about them more. Even Whoopi. You always get what you pay for. The military is your country's priority, not healthcare, infrastructure, or education. If that is the lifestyle your country chooses, then the consequences have to be accepted by the citizens. Just as the poor have to live with consequences of their choices.

I thought many new people signed up for Obamacare this year already. If it sinks now it belongs to the GOP after their rules and money designation changes, and making insurance companies feel it is too risky when they didn't know what was going to happen. Yes, Obama and many others want a single payer system but since that was not going to happen in the US - yet - he fought and compromised to get what he could. I feel sad that you think Obama set it up on purpose to fail.

Yes, I am in favor of making people pay themselves if they overeat, eat a lot of fast or unhealthy foods and not enough fruits and veggies, use tanning beds or expose themselves too much in the sun, smoke, drink excessively, have unprotected sex, drive carelessly, ride a motorcycle, bosses who let their employees be exposed to toxic substances. Etc

But even if I were in charge, I would not know how to enforce that or even where to stop. Every single one of us has done one or all of these things at some point in their lives. That is why there is no consideration taken for WHY one is ill. And delaying surgery on an obese person because of the risks is not the same as denying them treatment. It was not a contradiction.

It does not matter who makes the decisions because essential medical services are covered for Ontario residents with a card. Period. No matter the cause of the illness. The hospital must not turn anyone away who goes to emerg. It is not rationed.

But essential is the operative word. Is the mole coming off your face because you think it is unsightly? Or because a biopsy showed it is malignant? That's the difference. Choices do have to be made of course. Recently children under 25 were added to the over 65s who get drug coverage. But I think and hope that if a generic is available, that is the one that is covered. And we copay the dispensing fee with that being waived for those under a certain income. Some drugs such as my epi pen have to have a form filled by the doc saying that it is essential.

Doctors can and do make the decisions to keep costs down without jeopardizing care when they order tests. I understand US doctors have their own money making clinics? This would tempt them to order more tests. And with a less litigious society, Canadian doctors don't feel they need to cya.

Also, you need to add a couple of facts. The single payer system is much much more efficient. Taxes do not have to be raised to pay to the level of what your system costs you now. Costs all of you. Not just the government but the corporations who pay for your insurance now, and the indviduals who pay exorbitant copays and whatever else it costs them. Your healthcare is extremely big business. Our drug companies and lawyers are not allowed to advertise publicly - part of the reason why it is so costly in the US. That and all the paperwork generated by your system.

Secondly, the citizens do not fare as well as other countries even with the huge costs as the infant mortality rates and other outcomes are much worse in comparison in many instances.

I really do wish the US would get some system that works for you. How can that happen if nobody trusts the government, especially now when your president has told over 2000 major lies in one year and the toadies cover for him? I wouldn't trust them either now.

But maybe now that Obamacare got the foot in the door, they will devise a bipartisan good plan so that all citizens can sleep at night knowing that if a major illness hits them they won't die untreated or become bankrupt. I remember my late mother telling me back in the sixties how wonderful it was when she knew she and her family were going to be protected and we could afford to take our children to the doctor and not worry about what it cost as she had to do.

Shoot. I wrote a book again. I won't be offended if you ignore it, FD. My brain just doesn't stop.

Edited - PS - my brother had the surgery on his knee, is fine, but has to stay in hospital longer than most until they get his blood clotting drug levels back to normal as he has an artificial heart valve.

A man must be excessively stupid, as well as uncharitable, who believes there is no virtue but on his own side. Addison

ServicesSeveral years ago I was talking to an epidemiologist who is skeptical of the idea that smokers pose a mortal threat to people in their vicinity. Although he supported workplace smoking bans, he was frustrated by the willingness of so many anti-tobacco activists and public health officials to overlook or minimize the weakness of the scientific case that secondhand smoke causes fatal illnesses such as lung cancer and heart disease. He wondered when it would be possible to have a calm, rational discussion of the issue, one in which skeptics would not be automatically dismissed as tools of the tobacco industry. I suggested that such a conversation might take place once smoking bans became ubiquitous, at which point the political stakes would be lower. Judging from a recent article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, headlined "No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer," that conversation may have begun.

The article describes a large prospective study that "confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke." The study tracked more than 76,000 women, 901 of whom eventually developed lung cancer. Although "the incidence of lung cancer was 13 times higher in current smokers and four times higher in former smokers than in never-smokers," says the JNCI article, there was no statistically significant association between reported exposure to secondhand smoke and subsequent development of lung cancer. "We don’t want people to conclude that passive smoking has no effect on lung cancer," says one of the researchers, Stanford oncologist Heather Wakelee. "We think the message is, this analysis doesn't tell us what the risk is, or even if there is a risk."

While hardly the last word on the subject, the study has advantages over most of the research commonly cited as evidence that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. "To our knowledge," the authors say, "this is the first study to examine both active and passive smoking in relation to lung cancer incidence in a complete prospective cohort of US women." The prospective design avoids a weakness of studies that start with lung cancer cases and "match" them to controls. "Many studies that showed the strongest links between secondhand smoke and lung cancer were case-control studies, which can suffer from recall bias," notes the JNCI article, since "people who develop a disease that might be related to passive smoking are more likely to recall being exposed to passive smoking."

Even more revealing than the study's findings are the comments from experts quoted in the article (emphasis added):

You're right. I think there is little point in countering the points I think you have wrong on this subject. We could go on forever about this and in the end, nothing would change. You like your healthcare system, and I, along with many others, am not in favor of what we wound up with in Obamacare. We simply don't trust our politicians to do it right, because they have demonstrated they can't do it right via-a-viz the Veterans Administration, which is government-run healthcare.

That's not to say the system can't be improved, just that I don't think the government can do as good a job of that as private enterprise with regulations for safety and fair business practices. But I've no doubt we get there, eventually.

What really puzzles me is why people who don't live here in the US are so determined to tell us the kind of healthcare we should have. I don't understand why it is so important to folks outside our country to determine what happens to us on this topic. It is strange to me.A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~

Whoopi Goldberg is getting into the cannabis business – and with a ladies-first mindset.

The Oscar-winning actress is launching a medical marijuana line geared toward soothing period cramps, she told Vanity Fair. Created in partnership with cannabis company Om Edibles owner Maya Elisabeth, the Maya & Whoopi line will hawk cannabis edibles, topical rubs, liquid extracts and a THC-infused bath soak, some made only with cannabidiol.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.